Tony Rutkowski wrote:
Joe Sims wrote:
On your question, since any national government can join GAC by simply
saying so, the GAC is by definition those governments that care enough
about these issues to participate in it.
The GAC was not constituted by random self-organization. With only
a couple of exceptions, the ITU's member list became the basis for
GAC membership. These are typically the PTT and PTO regulatory
ministries in each country - who typically have strong hostile interests
and preconceived views about the Internet and the role of government.
These are the troglodytes of the telecommunications field.
Even supposing that the initial list was biased at the certain point in time
(which I disagree, but is not the point under discussion), it seems to me
that if a Government cares there's nothing that prevents it to change the
contact person.
are simply recommendations to the board. Why it is that the notion that
ICANN should not try to involve interested governments in its processes, so
that they feel invested in and (hopefully) protective of ICANN and its
consensus-building efforts, is somehow threatening to anyone is beyond me.
You comments ignore the last 20 years of telecommunications
and information policy and law, as well as the actual experiences
in dealing with these players. It also ignores the tenets of the
White Paper which calls for the the involvement of government staff
as peer users in the various activities of NewCo, not as a collective
independent intergovernmental body meeting in secret among themselves
to promulgate findings and agreements.
I confess I don't understand the first part of your comment.
As for the second part, you seem to assume that the USG is either against
the GAC, or has changed its mind about the White Paper.
Last comment, I see that you like the expression "meeting in secret", which,
to my limited knowledge of the English language, is a different thing than
"meeting behind closed doors". Whereas the first is more colorful and
evocates sects and illegal activities, the second one is more appropriate
for the case under discussion.
We can't wish them away, and since they are governments, they have the
power to pass laws that could be inconsistent with the private-sector,
consensus-building approach of ICANN. Under those circumstances, I would
think that the best way to minimize the risk that governments might act
inconsistently with ICANN is to make sure they are fully involved in and
knowledgable about ICANN, and have a way to make any concerns known within
the ICANN structure.
There is nothing about the coordination of the names and numbers
for private shared networks and network resources that should give
rise to the need for a permanent intergovernmental body.
I understand your position, against any type of intergovernmental and/or
standardization body - I guess it is inconsciously connected with the metric
system having been chosen instead of the foot-and-inch ;>).
It just happens that Governments (on the average) have a different approach,
and until you cannot find a way to ignore the Governments will, we have to
live with that.
Regards
Roberto
